Case Law Search

Judgement

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake,
please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No. 4

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 11279 Of 2004.

Salik Ram
........Petitioner.

Versus

District and Sessions Judge,

Jaunpur and others
......Respondents.

.........

Hon'ble Anjani Kumar, J.

Heard leanred counsel for the parties.

The petitioer-plaintiff in a suit which is pending before the trial court filed an application for grant of temporary injunction.
The trial court vide order dated 31.10.2003 directed for issue of notice on the application for grant of temporary injunction. Petitioner
aggrieved by the order dated 31.10.2003 preferred a revision before the revisional court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The revsisional court by the order dated 20.11.2003 dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner on the ground that since by the
impugned order the trial court has only issued notice and fixed date for disposal of the application, no interference is required
under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not demonstrate as to how the order passed
by the revisional court in any way suffers from an illegality much less an illegality which may warrant interferecne under Section
115 of the Code of Civil Procedure as amended in State of U. P. which is reproduced below:

"115. Revision.---(1) A superior Court may revise an order passed in a case decided in an original suit or other proceeding
by a subordinate Court where no appeal lies against the order and where the subordinate Court has---

(a) exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law; or

(b) fails to exercise a jurisdiction so vested; or

(c) acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregulality.

(2) A revision application under sub-section (1), when filed in the High Court, shall contain a certificae on the first page of
such application, below the title of the case, to the effect that no revision in the case lies to the district Court but lies only
to the High Court either because of valuation or becaue the order sought to be revised was passed by the district Court.

(3) The superior Court shall not, under this section, vary or reverse any order made except where,--

(i) the order, if it had been made in favour of the party applying for revision, would have finally disposed of the suit or
other proceeding; or

(ii) the order, if allowed to stand, would occasion a failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the party against
whom it is made.

(4) A revision shall not operate as a stay of suit or other proceeding before the Court except where such suit or other proceeding
is stayed by the superior Court. ................"

In view of the decision of the Apex Court reported in (2003) 6 SCC 659; Shiv Shakti Cooperative Housing Society Versus M/s Swaraj
Developers, the view taken by the revisional court is perfectly in accordane with law.

In this view of the matter, this writ petition has no force and is dismissed. However, the trial court is directed to decide the
temporary injunction application within three months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order before it.

Dated: 9.5.2006.

HR

Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites